[quote]vroom wrote:
BB,
You don’t recognize any of these things as true? [/quote]
We can talk about whether they’re true, but the thesis was that they were all true and all Bush’s fault.
[quote]He has divided the country; we are all part of a vicious little hissing match. We were united and humbled on Sept. 12, 2001. We are divided and humiliated now, telling lies about each other.
This isn’t happening right now? We can’t all judge the truth of this statement on our own without scientific proof? Ding, point to the author.[/quote]
Whether it’s happening or not is beside the point. THe author’s thesis is that Bush caused it - and, more than that, is at fault. Don’t you think the “Anybody But Bush” crowd has a hand in the divisiveness? I think the fact that a large group of citizens has chosen to hate the president and his policies is sad, but I don’t lay the blame on Bush for not appeasing them.
[quote]He has divided the world. “We are all Americans now,” headlined Le Monde on that Sept. 12. Now there are days when it seems as if they are all anti-Americans.
You don’t remember “we are all Americans now”? I do. Too bad we eat freedom fries now. Ding, point to the author.[/quote]
Oh, come on now - the fact that a French newspaper published a headline, and then the French government went on to advance its own interests by opposing the U.S. at every turn gives rise to the idea that Bush created a divided world?
Once again, I think this does a disservice to American allies to attempt to create this “AMerican unilateralist” picture, that is completely false, BTW. I can live with the French government and opinionated class being out of sorts.
There is a division going on, but it’s a division of priorities. The difference in the day-to-day headlines of a French daily notwithstanding.
[quote] He is leaving no child or grandchild without debt. He has taken the government from surplus into deficit in the name of national security and increased private investment. We can pay the debt in two ways: with more government revenues (taxation) or by borrowing – against the sweat and income of new generations. The president has chosen to borrow.
The president cut taxes and now has a huge deficit. You need a link in order to believe this? You don’t already know? You may agree it was the right thing to do, but the author is correct that this has happened. Ding, point to the author.[/quote]
You aren’t addressing what I wrote at all. There is a huge deficit. It is a problem.
I was arguing with the implication of the author - namely that Kerry would be better for those who actually care about the deficit, as opposed to those who just want to make some political hay. Please, make that case for me.
[quote]He campaigns as a champion of smaller government, but is greatly increasing the size and role of government. Ideological conservatism, it turns out, costs just as much or more than ideological liberalism. Conservative and liberal politicians are both for increasing the reach and power of government. The difference between them is which parts and functions of the state are to be empowered and financed. The choice is between military measures and order, or more redistribution of income. Money is power.
Here he complains that both parties are trying to increase the scope of the government. Again, you may agree that the proposed spending is appropriate, but are you going to argue it isn’t happening? Anyhow, I’ll call this one a draw to be cautious.[/quote]
Did you read what I wrote, or just what the author wrote? Bush didn’t campaign on reducing government. He campaigned on “compassionate conservatism.” People argued at the time this didn’t mean reducing government, and Bush never said it meant reducing government - in fact, he said the opposite, and talked about spending money on social programs. Which, of course, he did - and which, to the extent he is criticized from the left for increasing the deficit, belies the deficit critique.
[quote]He is diminishing the military of which he is so proud now as commander in chief. The invasion and occupation of Iraq have obviously not worked out the way he imagined – naked torture was not the goal. But the far greater problem for the future is that our proud commander has revealed the hollowness behind the unilateral superpower. From the top down, we have not been able to win Iraq, much less the world. And going into Iraq has compromised or crippled the war on terror he declared himself.
I think the author has a point, but I don’t think he has proven the US cannot wage the war on terror while in Iraq. Iraq is neither a win nor a loss right now. The sad thing is that if the Iraqi people would just be peaceful the US could leave. Ding, point to BB.[/quote]
Thanks, I think.
[quote]He is diminishing scientific progress, the great engine of the 20th century. Only the truly ignorant can believe that the proper role of government is to hinder medical research and environmental study in the name of God.
Again, this one resonates with so many people that are not in favor of Bush. However, the author hasn’t really shown that this is happening. Ding, point to BB.[/quote]
Thanks again. I still don’t know what he was referencing in terms of environmental policy. W/r/t stem-cell research, Bush’s policy is consistently misrepresented as a ban, when it is not a ban. Only in politics could declining to pay for something be a ban.
[quote]He is diminishing the Constitution of the United States. Cheesy tricks like amending the great text of freedom to attack homosexuality can be dismissed as wedge politics. But it is worse to preach against an activist judiciary while appointing more activist judges who happen to hold different beliefs, particularly the idea that civil liberties are the enemies of patriotism, security and freedom itself.
I’m afraid the author has a point here. Putting in judges that are pro “your stance” does not make them less than activists. This is commonly done by all administrations. Ding, point to the author.[/quote]
Interesting on the activist note, but the author provides precisely NO examples. None of the critiques I’ve heard for the Bush nominees have anything to do with activism. BTW, originalism isn’t activism - activism is putting ones own interpretation into the law or constitution. Originalism could mean overturning precedent, but that is different, in that precedent is entirely judge-made to begin with.
BTW, what cases was the author referencing? None I’ve heard of.
This is my area of expertise – if I were a betting man, I’d wager on me over this guy on this subject.
[quote]He has surrounded himself with other incompetents. The secretary of state is presiding over the rape of diplomacy and its alliances. The secretary of defense has sent our young men and women into situations they were never meant or trained to handle, and now they are being ordered into battle by an appointed minister in a faraway land. The national security adviser does not seem to know that her job description includes coordinating defense and diplomacy. And then there was our $340,000-a-month local hire, Ahmed Chalabi, sitting in the gallery of our House.
Well, there are some good points here. However the author wades into invective and fails to support everything claimed. However, his team allowing Abu Ghraib to occur on his watch, bad planning on the aftermath, trusting Chalibi, very poor judgement (also known as incompetence). However, I’m willing to call it a draw due to other extreme claims made.[/quote]
I’m sorry, but the whole idea of “it occurred on his watch, so he is to blame” troubles me. It basically absolves all other individual actors of responsibility. Abu Ghraib has in no way been linked to the President or his policies - please refer to the WSJ editorial on the “Final Word on Lies About Kerry” thread.
As to Iraq generally, I could not possibly argue everything in Iraq was perfectly planned or perfectly executed. But it’s certainly not the quagmire or huge problem it is generally portrayed as in the media.
[quote]He has been unable or unwilling to deal with declining employment and the rising medical costs of becoming an older nation.
Well, how to judge. There is a up trend now, but only after a down trend. You can also claim that the divide between rich and poor is increasing, though you could counterclaim that as long as you are making lots of money you don’t care. I’m going for the draw again.[/quote]
This deserves its own thread, both on your comments on separation of rich and poor and the author’s assertions. Perhaps I will start one tommorrow. Suffice it to say, for now, this is ridiculous.
[quote]He is, as if by design, destroying the credibility of the United States as a force for peace in the world – an honest broker – particularly in the Middle East.
Well, yes, I can’t imagine the US has any real part of the peace process in the Middle East right now. I don’t think you need scientific proof to see that any deal proposed by the US will be derided by Arabic critics. Ding, point to author even if you don’t care if the US is a peace broker or not.[/quote]
When were proposals by the U.S. not derided by Arab critics? Go back and check your history books – apparently we’ve been pawns of the Israelis since at least the late 1950s, if one were to go by Arab opinion. How has Bush made this worse?
{quote]So, lets see, where did I put my voodoo stick, this is some complex math. Points to the author 5, points to BB 2, inconclusive points 3. That is a more honest assessment of this article. The quick dismissal is just arising out of a political opposition to the statements included.[/quote]
Or, perhaps, it’s arising from the fact the author put forth a lot of claims and no facts, no reasoning, no explication – basically just levelled a lot of charges at Bush. But, for one who likes to draw parallels to recent politics, if one likes that sort of thing I guess one would be with Kerry’s defenders in general.
